Who has the better resume Pernell Whitaker or Manny Pacquiao?

[hugh grant]

Why don't you try actually watching fights?

You're on a boxing website and make bold, brash and frankly stupid statments 10 times out of 10 all whilst barely watching any fights.

I have watched the fight of Pernel and Chavez. Im just speaking generally in terms of many people thinking it was controversial without me revealing if i thought it was.
I beg to differ as regards me making stupid statements.

[Ragnar Lothbrok]

Exactly what argument am I trying to warp? I asked a simple question. If you noticed, I haven't voted in the poll or said Pea had a better resume. I think their resumes are pretty close and would probably even edge Manny. My question Washington geared towards his reasoning. The poster I was referring to has a lack of boxing knowledge and is close minded. Do yourself a favor and don't jump to conclusions sand make assumptions about my "agenda".

jab i respect your opinion and i know you know your boxing but you do have an agenda and you are the old school vanguard i consistently talk about having a bias for old school fighters and a bias against modern recent fighters. Just look at your sig FFS, and close minded? i think that's a typical problem for old people. Yall dont want to accept anything new and progressive. Everything for yall is preservation of YOUR history hence everything was better back then.

[MJ223]

I hope BS never puts a cap on the ignore list.....

[IronDanHamza]

I just hate when people argue against it like it's ridiculous to count such fights as wins.

I'll use Pacquiao-Marquez 3 as an example, since it applies to me personally. I thought Pacquiao won, but a very large majority of the boxing public and media consider it a robbery. So I shut up about it, and I would never say "Marquez officially lost" because that's stupid.

If Mr. Invincible thinks Ramirez or Chavez deserved the verdicts in those fights, he should argue his case, instead of saying "he officially lost/drew" in those fights.

It's usually when guys get caught out.

They go on Boxrec, see a L and talk about it as if they have seen it or know about it.

I personally don't understand why people do that but it seems they do it a lot on here.

They'll back track and say "Well they officially lost and that's all that matters".

Why on Earth, is that all that matters?

I'm not sure if that guy is actually serious though. I think he might be trolling or if not just delusional.

[Ragnar Lothbrok]

I just hate when people argue against it like it's ridiculous to count such fights as wins.

I'll use Pacquiao-Marquez 3 as an example, since it applies to me personally. I thought Pacquiao won, but a very large majority of the boxing public and media consider it a robbery. So I shut up about it, and I would never say "Marquez officially lost" because that's stupid.

If Mr. Invincible thinks Ramirez or Chavez deserved the verdicts in those fights, he should argue his case, instead of saying "he officially lost/drew" in those fights.

the majority of the public finally saw pac in a close fight but since its pac who is the only other polarizing fighter in the sport other than mayweather, its a robbery.

how the fu kkk could a close fight where rounds where so difficult to score constitute a robbery?

how could marquez be robbed if pac threw more punches than him, landed more punches than him, and marquez face was in much worse shape than pac's was?

[Rockin']

You put hands on? Lmao!! I love the internet tough guy act!!

I'm an internet toughguy. You don't put your hands on them, you put them in 'em, straight down their throat. who needs their ass kicked.........Rockin'

[bojangles1987]

the majority of the public finally saw pac in a close fight but since its pac who is the only other polarizing fighter in the sport other than mayweather, its a robbery.

how the fu kkk could a close fight where rounds where so difficult to score constitute a robbery?

how could marquez be robbed if pac threw more punches than him, landed more punches than him, and marquez face was in much worse shape than pac's was?

Please don't start that argument here, there's no point.

[Mr. Invincible]

I cannot stand when people just blindly state "He officially lost" about a robbery. That loss and draw are total bullsh** that objective fans universally recognize as bullsh**. Coming from someone who barely acknowledges that Vitali got stopped by Lennox Lewis, holding the Ramirez and Chavez fights against Whitaker are plain bias and are bullsh** for you to post.

That's cool you have an opinion as well. Congratulations.

[bojangles1987]

That's cool you have an opinion as well. Congratulations.

Why don't you tell us why the Ramirez fight wasn't a robbery, or why the Chavez fight was a draw? Just saying "well officially blah blah blah" gives the impression you've never seen either fight. If you have, tell us why we are wrong.

Again, you try your best not to acknowledge that Vitali was stopped by Lewis, but you're telling us Whitaker lost at lightweight just because the official record says so, vehemently defending a robbery. Quite the double standard, if you can't give us a reason why Whitaker lost to Ramirez.

[Toyman]

the majority of the public finally saw pac in a close fight but since its pac who is the only other polarizing fighter in the sport other than mayweather, its a robbery.

how the fu kkk could a close fight where rounds where so difficult to score constitute a robbery?

how could marquez be robbed if pac threw more punches than him, landed more punches than him, and marquez face was in much worse shape than pac's was?

Good point.

I thought marquez only won 3 rounds in that fight, and the rest of the rounds he was content with back pedalling and landing 1 punch per minute.

Furthermore, no one has the right to claim robbery when their face looks like this